2025 Minneapolis Housing Questionnaire — Ward 11

Neighbors for More Neighbors has partnered with Inquilinxs Unidxs Por Justicia, Wedge LIVE!, The Housing Justice League, Housing in Action and BikeMN to sponsor a housing questionnaire for the 2025 Minneapolis Elections. You can see all responses (mayoral and city council candidates) here.

We sent this questionnaire to all candidates who filed campaign finance reports as of April 16, 2025. We received a response from Jamison Whiting on September 28th. No other candidates have responded.

The candidates are ordered alphabetically by last name, except for the incumbent, who is placed first. You may view the candidate responses to each question by clicking on the “+” icon to the left of the question.

Question 1: One way to create complete, walkable neighborhoods is to legalize local commercial use within those neighborhoods. The existing zoning code prohibits commercial use on approximately 89% of Minneapolis lots.

Will you vote for zoning changes to allow local, low-impact small businesses (e.g. coffee shops, restaurants, corner stores, etc.) to be built in residential neighborhoods throughout our entire city?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Yes
    Yes—I support expanding access to low-impact, local small businesses like corner stores, cafes, and restaurants in residential neighborhoods. These kinds of neighborhood-scale businesses contribute to more complete, walkable neighborhoods, and they are a big part of what makes Minneapolis such a wonderful place to live. While allowing commercial use on every residential lot may be a step too far, I absolutely support increasing the share of lots citywide where this kind of local commerce is permitted, particularly along our local business corridors and in areas currently underserved by walkable amenities.

Question 2: Some cities like South Bend, Indiana, have developed a set of pre-approved, residential project plans to help (1) lower the cost of construction by reducing design fees and (2) speed up approval times. These initiatives involve working with architects and engineers to develop a set of plans for one to six-unit homes that are permitted throughout the city.

Will you vote to create an accessible catalog of free or low-cost, pre-approved home plans for the City of Minneapolis?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Yes
    Yes, absolutely! This is a relatively low-cost, pro-housing initiative that many cities are exploring and encourages more “missing middle” housing by making it easier and cheaper to build. These types of programs likely require city funding for associated costs such as hiring architects and managing permitting reform, and, budget depending, I would fully support an accessible catalog such as this. Also, were the city to find itself in a position where this program is politically or financially unfeasible at scale, I would be in support of a pilot program that focuses on ADUs, duplexes, or other forms of housing to show a proof of concept in the short term in an effort to increase the efficacy of a full build-out of the initiative. 

Question 3: Given Minneapolis’s history of redlining, exclusionary zoning, freeway construction through historically Black & minority neighborhoods, slum clearance, and urban renewal, what are your goals to address historic & ongoing harms–in an equitable and restorative way–to build a better and more livable Minneapolis for all residents?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Build. More. Housing. We need to build significantly more housing across the entire housing affordability spectrum, especially in the neighborhoods that are historically excluded and intentionally disinvested. Focusing on communities that are experiencing historic and ongoing harm, while important, is not the only answer for these neighborhoods. Affordable, and deeply affordable housing of all types in all neighborhoods reduces the harm incurred in our most impacted communities. We again need to build housing of all kinds in all neighborhoods in our city. This work can’t be done top-down. The city must be seen as a partner with those who have been fighting for housing justice and reparative development for decades, and those who develop homes in an equitable way. Our goal for the City is to be a steward of the work of community-based, culturally specific organizations and developers that know the most effective and restorative approaches to best serve their residents. 

Question 4: Minneapolis currently allows property owners to build triplexes on any residential lot. In practice, on an average 5,000 square foot lot in Minneapolis, each triplex unit is constrained to ~800 square feet due to other size and height limitations in the code (these are built-form restrictions & floor-to-area ratios). Most of the triplexes that currently exist were built decades ago and would not be allowed today under current rules.

Will you vote to change city built-form restrictions so that new triplexes could be built if they stayed consistent with existing forms?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Abstain
    I support the city’s effort to encourage triplexes as a way to expand housing options for all residents of the city, and I am in favor of allowing triplexes on certain built form overlay districts. I’m also open to revisiting FAR (floor area ratio) and height limits in areas where current rules make it functionally impossible to build triplexes, especially in districts where increased density makes sense.
    That said, I don’t support removing those restrictions wholesale across the city. Any changes made should be aligned with our broader housing/climate/livability goals, and ensure new development fits well within the character of our neighborhoods.

Question 5: The Minneapolis 2040 Plan has been highly successful in allowing more studios and 1 to 2 bedroom homes to be built in the City, primarily in buildings with 20 or more units. However, 3 or more bedroom homes in these same buildings are rare; meaning families with children are competing for a limited supply of single-family homes.

Will you vote to change zoning restrictions to encourage the development of 3-bedroom units–in multi-unit buildings–for growing Minneapolis families?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Abstain
    I support efforts to make it easier to build 3-bedroom units in multi-family buildings so families, multi-generational families, and all others that would best benefit from three-bedroom units have more options to stay in Minneapolis, but the heart of this issue is about how our built-form regulations interact with unit size.
    In many lower-density neighborhoods, the current FAR designation makes it nearly impossible to include larger units, especially in smaller-scale buildings like triplexes. I’m open to zoning changes that promote family-sized housing, specifically when aligned with overlay districts where that scale of development makes sense.

Question 6: Across the country, many cities and states are updating their zoning codes to allow more homes near high-quality transit. For example, Washington State legalized six-plexes within a half-mile of major transit stops.

Will you vote for zoning reforms in Minneapolis to support more homes on all land within a half-mile of major transit stops, including LRT, BRT, and ABRT lines?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Abstain
    To answer this question fully, I need additional clarification. Depending on how “major transit stop” is defined, “all land within a half-mile of a major transit stops” would include most of the city. Building more homes near major transit hubs is good policy, and I’d be open to zoning reforms near truly high-frequency, well-connected transit corridors like the LRT, BRT, ABRT lines. These zoning changes should be informed, however, by the 2040 plan and other hyper local neighborhood context.

Question 7: What specific anti-displacement measures will you support to ensure these zoning changes benefit existing residents and prevent displacement of low-income communities for current and future projects?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Promoting affordable housing preservation and the efforts of community land trusts. The strongest way to combat displacement for existing residents and low-income communities is to keep housing affordable both in existing low-income communities and neighborhoods across the city. We must ensure the current affordable housing stock stays affordable by supporting the organizations that are currently housing our low-income residents, and encourage new development, through community land trusts (held in perpetuity), in neighborhoods that are prime for this level of community investment.

Question 8: Minneapolis residents, City Council, and the current Mayor are all concerned with rising homelessness rates, which increase the prevalence of local encampments.

Do you support the current mayoral administration’s policy of encampment clearing?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Abstain
    The short answer is: we should not put a moratorium on encampment closures. Encampments are harmful to those living in and near the encampments. 
    The longer answer is–the process of encampment closures is an unsafe experience for the unhoused residents residing there, the families, residents, and neighbors surrounding the encampments, and the city employees clearing the encampments.
    I have had numerous conversations with unhoused residents of these encampments and MPD officers about this issue. Many of the officers have described the encampment closure process to me as the absolute worst part of their job and dehumanizing for all parties. I have also had conversations with those who live in and support work in these encampments, and they describe similar sentiments, specifically around the destruction of a highly vulnerable person’s worldly possessions. We can hold multiple truths at once, which speaks to the complexity of this issue: encampments are unsafe to live in, unsafe to live near, and unsafe to remove. The worst possible outcome is a cycle where we continue conducting regular encampment clearings—displacing unhoused people, committing substantial city resources, and causing significant hardship—only for the encampments to reappear a few blocks away. This repeating pattern leads to no real progress, just ongoing disruption and expense. With that in mind, if we are to continue encampment closures in the manner we’ve been doing, we need to make very certain that the affected unhoused residents have somewhere to actually go. This is easier said than done: even if Minneapolis shelter beds are available on paper, many homeless shelters have restrictions which prohibit unhoused residents from taking full advantage. While it is reasonable, for example, for a homeless shelter to require that its unhoused guests be fully sober, that becomes a serious hurdle when city workers are attempting to convince someone struggling with a fentanyl addiction to come in from the cold. It is also reasonable, for example, for homeless shelters to specialize as men’s or women’s only facilities, but that becomes a tough sell for unhoused couples and families. We should not undersell the progress Minneapolis has made on this issue; Hennepin County has made substantial strides in combating houselessness among veterans with a lot of effort and at great expense. However, we must be wary of adopting an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality to houselessness. Clearing a homeless encampment does not “fix” the problem unless we’re able to place those being displaced according to their individual needs. I am heartened by the recent progress we’ve made on this issue, but I am wary of quick fixes: the process of ending houselessness in Minneapolis will be expensive, tedious, and slow – but necessary and worth it. 

Question 9: What will you do to protect people who see encampments as their only option, while increasing and expanding access to stable, permanent and deeply affordable housing for all people in Minneapolis?

  • Jamison Whiting
    This is the hardest issue in America to solve, and it defies easy solutions. Where the City and its partners have invested in both preventing houselessness and supporting long-term stability, we’ve seen real progress. We know the solutions that work, and we need to support the work that is already being done. We have expanded the Stable Homes Stable Schools program—an effective model that connects families with housing stability—to reach hundreds of families and children. We recently spent $1.6 million to keep Avivo Village open, maintaining critical shelter services through 2025. 
    Solving chronic unsheltered houselessness requires investments in a combination of prevention measures, shelter preservation, and permanent housing with supportive wraparound services. Looking at Hennepin County as a trusted partner and an example of governance that has been successful in this area, I would continue to support partnerships with the county and a multitude of nonprofit organizations on the houselessness issues we are facing in our city. On this issue, I will always defer to the experts who are fighting this problem daily

Question 10: Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) gives current tenants the first right to purchase the property that they live in should their landlord want to sell. A policy such as TOPA advances opportunities for community ownership as well as a transfer of wealth back to renters. If you are elected, will you vote to advance TOPA?

  • Jamison Whiting
    No
    While I strongly support the goal of preventing displacement, promoting housing stability, and ensuring a consistent stock of affordable housing options, at present, an ordinance in support of TOPA related policy would lack the critical infrastructure to make it effective. Similar to the Revised Affordable Housing Right of First Refusal ordinance there is no dedicated funding mechanism to help qualified individuals or organizations purchase properties and no clear plan to mitigate security, insurance, and maintenance costs (some of the driving causes of the crisis in affordable housing development at the moment). Without a companion funding source or a pilot phase to test its feasibility (and I would support a pilot phase), this policy risks setting up good faith actors to fail—ultimately undermining its own goals.

Question 11: Will you support using city resources to establish locally-owned housing–sometimes referred to as social housing–that is permanently affordable, protected from private market forces, publicly owned, and under democratic governance by the tenants?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Abstain
    I fully support efforts to create and maintain permanent affordable housing, but this question alludes to multiple distinct models under the term “social housing.” While I’m not in favor of direct public ownership by the City as the primary model, I do support community-based and nonprofit ownership structures—especially where residents have a meaningful role in governance and the housing remains affordable long-term. I would be supportive of models that empower tenants, are financially sustainable, and involve public partnerships, but I’m cautious about relying solely on city-owned housing as the path forward.

Question 12: Today, city property taxes are set primarily on the “improvements” or value of the buildings on land. As a result, “low value” land with parking lots or vacant lots pay very little in taxes while making surrounding neighborhoods less livable. This incentivizes low-value land owners to engage in land speculation for years or even decades until they get a big payout. A Land Value Tax (LVT) doesn’t change their taxes to the city; it shifts how taxes are set to be primarily based on the value of the land to discourage land speculation.

If the state passes legislation to allow it–pending special session outcomes–will you vote to pilot a LVT to encourage development of under-used land in Minneapolis?

  • Jamison Whiting
    Yes

Question 13: Rent stabilization continues to be considered in Minneapolis. Supporters hope to discourage unfair rent gouging and displacement. Opponents worry it could stifle the development of new homes.

How would you evaluate rent stabilization policy? What components could you vote for and which would you not be able to vote for?

Examples of policy components include, but are not limited to: a specific percentage cap on rent increases, a new construction exemption, vacancy decontrol, just cause eviction, etc.

  • Jamison Whiting
    I would not support a specific percentage cap on rent increases, such as was passed in Saint Paul in 2021. However, there are specific circumstances where I feel the city should step in.

    For example, I am alarmed by what I am learning about the use of software by some landlords to artificially raise rents through algorithmic collusion.

    While I believe market-rate rents and rental caps set by HUD for low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) properties should largely dictate rent prices, price fixing in rental markets is not acceptable. This is why I support the city council’s recent steps, consistent with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, and other state Attorney General Offices, to ban this anti-competitive practice. 

    I have had conversations with private developers, affordable housing providers, and community development organizations, and the most common feedback is a desire for consistent policy across the housing continuum. I will approach housing-related issues in Minneapolis the way that I approach all city issues: engaging the experts who are fighting this problem daily.  Rent gouging, as a practice, is abhorrent, and I need to hear from more stakeholders on this issue. 

Question 14: Evictions in Minneapolis have skyrocketed since the eviction moratorium was lifted and far too many renters are one paycheck away from losing their home.

What ideas do you have to reduce evictions in our communities?

  • Jamison Whiting
    We need to move beyond a narrow framework of “evict vs. don’t evict” and focus on preventing evictions before they become inevitable. That starts with expanding access to emergency rental assistance and tenant support services, so that unexpected hardship — a lost job, a medical bill — doesn’t spiral into housing loss.

    When rent is not paid, there are downstream consequences that often go unnoticed. Several affordable housing providers in Minneapolis have shared that they’re still struggling to recover from the financial impacts of the pandemic, when rent collections dropped dramatically. While eviction moratoriums may have been necessary and appropriate at the time, the aftershocks have put serious pressure on nonprofits that operate some of the last remaining stable housing options for low-income Minneapolitans. If those organizations falter, those deeply affordable units could disappear with them.

    The long-term solution to reducing evictions is ensuring people can afford their housing through living wages, direct emergency rental assistance, and preserving/expanding deeply affordable housing stock across the city.